Saturday, September 18, 2010

Untamed Power

One of the things that concerned me a great deal about the American willingness to give up power to the Bush administration after 9/11 was that once power is yielded, it is seldom given back at least not willingly. I asked a question back then which is still valid. You don't mind it now but what if it's someone from the other party who has it?

People often are comfortable with the power being in those who talk like they want to hear, in their own party, but they should not be. Nobody can be trusted with ultimate power and yet that is what has been happening in the United States and it has not been undone as I feared it would not.

Some liked Hillary Clinton's foreign policy address a lot. I did not and this article says well what my concerns were. I hope righties and lefties will read the article. This problem is not linked to one or the other party. It's about power. I don't care if it's in a personal relationship or a business or a country-- power once given away is hard to get back.


The party that gave up this power to the last administration in the name of revenge and physical safety is the party that wants it back again. Americans might well give it back. Will that party have learned anything through it all?

We all need to look at who wants the power and what they are doing with it.  Is there anybody running, left or right, who would give this kind of power up? For those who worry about the growth of government, this is what they should fear. I have a fear too that by the time they finally realize it, it might be too late to do anything about it. Maybe it already is given the Supreme Court is totally in the hands of power to the prince mentality.

10 comments:

Kay Dennison said...

Thank you!!!! Very well said!!!

Robert the Skeptic said...

For me, recently watching the 1985 Terry Gilliam film "Brazil" was almost a terrifyingly-comical statement on where America is today. Terrorists lurking under every rock, a burgeoning bureaucracy intent on security at any cost, perpetual commercialism and consumerism.

It' already happening here: Just this week the Pennsylvania governor, I believe, severed a contract with a private security company that was supposed to be providing terrorism threat information to the state. They were reporting rallies for gay marriages and medical care protests as "terrorism threats"!! The governor, when called on the spot, admitted this information was useless.

Worse yet, and what went unsaid, is that these types of protest were deemed threatening to the security of the United States because they oppose the views of conservatives.

I think it's too late, Rain... the power given to our government will be difficult to wrest from their hands. If we cannot from Obama, we sure as hell won't from the next conservative administration.

And believe me, I am certainly no supporter of the lunatic fringe identifying themselves as the Tea Party movement.

Rain said...

I agree with all you said, Robert. I feel the same way that if we couldn't get it back from Obama, I don't know how we will. The tea party movement is under-girded by the Christian right which means if they get in power, more rights will be taken as part of their agenda. I suspect the problem Obama faced was if he gave back the rights, the righties would castigate him for not valuing the safety of our country-- an accusation they throw out all the time anyway.

Ingineer66 said...

I agree with much of what you say but feel compelled to point out a few things maybe just for arguments sake.
The article fails to point out that this list was compiled for a Democrat governor under a No-Bid contract. You know the kind that were so horrible under W. And also not mentioned was the fact that Tea Party groups were also mentioned and investigated. Not just "groups that oppose the views of conservatives".

And I am not sure where the statement that the GOP loves torture came from. That is just total hate speech fabricated to foment a reaction. Most torture of prisoners in the modern world has been facilitated by totalitarian regimes that seem to be the type of big all powerful government that our current president endears.

And holding a power drill next to a terrorist's head is not torture. Drilling into his skull while he is still alive is torture. You can do some research on the types of things the Nazi's or Japanese or Sadam or the Taliban do to find out what real torture is.

And as for the article speaking of the Geneva Convention. What uniform does Al Qaida wear into battle and under what flag do they march into battle against unarmed civilians that they slaughter?
What did the Geneva Convention do for the people that chose to jump 100 floors out of the World Trade Center to their deaths because that was a better prospect than what they faced inside? What rights did Daniel Pearl get from his captors that we should respect when dealing with these animals?

Many, not all, but many liberals are all about the rights of the criminals or terrorists, but what about the rights of the innocent that are slaughtered by these animals? Do our rights as law abiding citizens mean nothing? And it is funny how it all changes when something happens to a high profile liberal. Look at John Lennon's killer. For some reason he should not be granted parole for a single murder that happened 25 years ago. But for a scumbag that raped and murdered a teenage girl, by all means he should be freed because it is cruel to lock him up for the rest of his life.

Ingineer66 said...

It said my comment was too large to post so I split it into two parts.

Many, not all, but many liberals are all about the rights of the criminals or terrorists, but what about the rights of the innocent that are slaughtered by these animals? Do our rights as law abiding citizens mean nothing? And it is funny how it all changes when something happens to a high profile liberal. Look at John Lennon's killer. For some reason he should not be granted parole for a single murder that happened 25 years ago. But for a scumbag that raped and murdered a teenage girl, by all means he should be freed because it is cruel to lock him up for the rest of his life.

Rain said...

ingineer, haven't you heard about the dissatisfaction with democrats over Obama on things like rendition? which means you send them to someone else who does torture? Also it is torture to hold an electric drill up to someone's head and terrify them. You Republicans justified Bush on these things in the name of safety but they NEVER work and often make a trial impossible.

The thing is you can't have it both ways. Either we are at war and it's how you avoid trials and have secret prisons, and so many other conveniences or you are at war and certain rules apply. Actually I heard a term recently that I like for this and it covers it well-- the weasel door. It might not be what the user of it meant but I like as a term for sneaky uses of terminology to justify whatever someone wants to do.

Get it straight. Republicans voted Bush back in knowing exactly what a weasel he had been. Since 35% of Americans want him back, I'd say that Republicans still would vote him back in for lying to them and making them feel better. Democrats aren't like that about Obama right now. It benefits your party that you are that way. It keeps power better and you guys will vote for your guy even when they are a filed CEO like Fiorina or a never accomplished anything like O'Donnell or a bad joke like Palin.

Rain said...

The no-bid contracts under Obama are as disliked by Democrats as is appointing foxes to guard chicken houses. I heard no such complaint regarding Bush and he did a LOT more of it and in places that were more catastrophic like that led to the gulf spill.

You want a prince. You want that leader who will dominate and make things happen. Clearly you relish (as a party not maybe you specifically) tough talk and short speeches with soundbites and a network who reassures you that if they allow the tax cuts to expire on the rich that it's unfair and if they keep them, it wont impact the deficit. Logic, thy name is not Republican voters.

Rain said...

And some died under the torture we did. How many may never be proved. but a lot of republicans secretly relished it happened while others openly did. some called it the equivalent of fraternity hazing. They had no clue what was going on or what water boarding was like or that it can kill. They didn't care that such 'evidence' gained that way would never be used in a court of law. I think Obama got dragged into doing some of it if not directly because of threats he'd been seen as hating our country and wanted terrorists to succeed. It will take a strong leader to stand against what the Republicans have begun and not sure either party has such a man or woman

Ingineer66 said...

Prime Minister Pelosi knew in 2002. If she was so concerned about it then she should have paid more attention to her job instead of trying to do Howard Dean's job for him.
And you were not reading my comments then if you did not think me and many others didn't have a problem with some of the no-bid contracts that were handed out in Iraq and Kuwait.

Anonymous said...

Nice brief and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you for your information.